State v. McGlaughlin

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. McGlaughlin

1995 Ohio 91, 74 Ohio St. 3d 72

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 22, 1995

Docket1994-0961

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1995 Ohio 91 (State v. McGlaughlin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. McGlaughlin, 1995 Ohio 91, 74 Ohio St. 3d 72 (Ohio 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 74 Ohio St.3d 72.]

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. MCGLAUGHLIN, APPELLEE. [Cite as State v. McGlaughlin, 1995-Ohio-91.] Witnesses—Criminal law—Trial court may exclude person from appearing as a witness on behalf of a criminal defendant at trial if court determines that witness will not offer any testimony, but merely intends to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. (No. 94-961—Submitted October 11, 1995—Decided November 22, 1995.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 93AP-1109. _________________ Michael Miller, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Katherine Press, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant. Dye & Fleck, Lewis William Dye and William J. Fleck, Jr., for appellee. _________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the judgment of the trial court is reinstated on the authority of State v. Kirk (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 564, 651 N.E.2d 981. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., concur. __________________

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 74 Ohio St.3d 72.]

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. MCGLAUGHLIN, APPELLEE. [Cite as State v. McGlaughlin, 1995-Ohio-91.] Witnesses—Criminal law—Trial court may exclude person from appearing as a witness on behalf of a criminal defendant at trial if court determines that witness will not offer any testimony, but merely intends to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. (No. 94-961—Submitted October 11, 1995—Decided November 22, 1995.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 93AP-1109. _________________ Michael Miller, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Katherine Press, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant. Dye & Fleck, Lewis William Dye and William J. Fleck, Jr., for appellee. _________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the judgment of the trial court is reinstated on the authority of State v. Kirk (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 564, 651 N.E.2d 981. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., concur. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1995 Ohio 91, 74 Ohio St. 3d 72, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mcglaughlin-ohio-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack